Friday, September 25, 2026

Tim Hunter | Working It Out / 2007

the black speedo

by Douglas Messerli

 

Tim Hunter (screenwriter, based on his stage play, and director) Working It Out / 2007 [6 minutes]

 

Gay comedies about spousal cheating do not represent my favorite genre, and I am afraid that although I sometimes find them momentarily fun in their nasty put-downs of marital constancy, they leave a truly unpleasant after taste.

     Australian director Tim Hunter’s comedy Working It Out at least presents the cheating game from both sides of the room. Gay couple Peter and Marcus meet up for an evening workout before their dinner of Thai chicken.


      But already in the changing room, one of them has had eyes for another bloke, Jeremy who appears out of nowhere. By the time they’ve begun their exercises, they already mutually bickering as long-term couples are prone to do, Marcus, having noticed the look Jeremy gave to his partner wonders out loud who he is, Peter pretending to know nothing about him, just a guy he’s noticed about. After a few moments of further give-and-take remarks, Peter admits to having previously spoken him, admits that he finds him attractive, and has observed that he wears a black Speedo in the pool. But, he insists, just because he’s spoken to him does not mean that he’s sucked his cock and had sex with him.

      Inevitably, the conversation turns to other accusations, Peter suggesting that Marcus might be a little more outgoing (“I come here to work out, not to socialize or pig out,” is his comeback) and Marcus arguing that it’s clear even if he hasn’t had sex with him, he clearly wants to.

      Peter ultimately calls Marcus jealous, which he admits he may be. Peter suggests they could have a threesome, but Marcus says that wouldn’t want a threesome with the two of them. And so it goes, the back-and-forth attacks and imagined sins of both partners.


   When Jeremy comes and joins them on the treadmill beside where they’re working out, Peter introduces Marcus and himself, suggesting he’s never told him his name.

      In the shower, finally, Jeremy meets up with Marcus, relaying his apologies since he didn’t know he (Peter) was his boyfriend: “Is it problem?” Marcus tells of him of Peter’s idea about a threesome, of which Jeremy seems most interested. But Marcus suggests, “Why spoil a good thing?” They kiss and plan to meet up next Thursday when Peter has a meeting.

      In the steam room, meanwhile, we see Peter, touching his cock as he awaits Jeremy’s arrival. The man in the black Speedo soon appears.


     The most profound thing you can say about this comedic gesture is that it reiterates the notion that gay men are inherently unable to maintain monogamous relationships. Not only do I doubt the truth of that—although it is certainly likely that gay men of a certain generation before AIDS, when marriage was not possible and sex an easy alternative for urban gays, might have found it difficult to alter their behavior when marriage became a possibility—but from the looks of heterosexual divorce rates, it appears that heterosexual couples have never been very good at maintaining look-term relationships either. Perhaps just an open admission and acceptance of occasional outside sex might resolve many of the problems about sex outside of a relationship. As many have long argued, the human animal has never developed a gene for sexual exclusivity. Maybe a threesome might be a better solution than a gay couple secretly sharing a fortunate outsider. It’s the lies, the pleasure of the secret that most interferes with solid relationships, gay, lesbian, or heterosexual. I wonder, do bisexuals make for more honest mates, or do they hide their bisexuality, being tempted by absolutely any beautiful person who they may meet?

 

Los Angeles, May 8, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (May 2023).

 

Thursday, September 24, 2026

John Ford | Mary of Scotland / 1936

queen, woman, and wife

by Douglas Messerli

 

Dudley Nichols (screenplay, based on the play by Maxwell Anderson), John Ford (director) Mary of Scotland / 1936

 

The 1936 costume drama, Mary of Scotland, has not been treated well by most critics, particularly since its first showings in theaters. Pauline Kael listed it among her very worst movies. But frankly, I feel about it very much like the Tom Milne writes in the Time Out Film Guide:

 

“A better film than its reputation would suggest, marvelously shot by Joe August, and with Ford making striking use of the imposing RKO sets even while remaining strangled by the arty ambitions of Maxwell Anderson’s play (which contrives to reduce history to a novelette chronicling the jealous rivalry that drove Elizabeth Tudor to destroy Mary Stuart). One electric sequence—a hellfire sermon delivered by Moroni Olsen as John Knox—shows the extent to which Ford remained uninvolved elsewhere by the polite conversation of historical costume drama, but the performances are fascinating in the careful, slightly stilted way, and it looks terrific.”


     Yet there are a number of other serious problems. First of all, Katharine Hepburn, playing Mary, is somewhat miscast. She should have played Elizabeth, a role awarded instead to actor Fredric March’s wife, Florence Eldridge. She does a credible job as the virgin queen, tough, hard, and manly, determined to keep Mary for attempting to usurp her crown, although as the heir of James V and granddaughter of Margaret Tudor (daughter of Henry VII of England) she was thought to have a more legitimate claim to the crown throughout Europe than Elizabeth, given that Her claim was through her mother Anne Boleyn, whose marriage was annulled by Henry VIII. While Elizabeth has scrambled and fought her way to the top, Mary’s roles of queen of both France and Scotland simply have fallen into her lap.

       Returning from France, where she had been married to the young Francis, the Dauphin of France, a sickly young 15-year old married Mary, 16. She suddenly became now queen of France. But her husband died early of an ear and brain infection. Having spent now most of her life in France, Mary had no experience in the religious and rough factional struggles of the different clans in Scotland. Yet, in the film she returns almost as a kind of feminist, a forceful woman who despite her refusal to give up her Catholicism, appears ready to bring a new openness to Scottish religious rights. As critic Leigh Wakefield, writing in on her blog, observes:

 

“At first glance, Hepburn’s Mary looked promising. Returning to Scotland after 13 years in France, Mary of Scotland opens with a badass queen, who puts the ambitious Scottish Lords in their place and defies their domineering influence. Here was a woman who was not afraid to put her foot down and establish her queenly authority! Rather refreshingly, Mary wants to do things on her own terms, without the manipulation and intimidation of the men who resented her return to power. When confronted by her Scottish Lords about her single status, Mary cries: “I am going to live my own life; do as I say. I refuse to marry. I love no one and I shall marry no one. I’m going to begin to be myself, Mary Stuart!.”


   But the Privy Council are determined to keep the independent Mary in line. Although there is no lost love between them, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell (March), continues to support her, however, despite the fact that he is Protestant and she a Catholic. But she is soon pressured to find an appropriate husband to produce an heir. And particularly after pressure brough to bare by her dear friend and secretary, the Italian David Rizzio (John Carradine) she decides upon Henry Stuart, Lord Darnely (Douglas Walton). Darnely was actually a logical choice since he was also the primary heir to the British throne after Elizabeth’s death. By marrying him, she not only assured her possible rise to that position but made yet another claim for her son, with whom she is now pregnant.

     Outwardly, the historical Darnely, whom Elizabeth described as a tall lad—he was over 6 feet tall—was an excellent hunter, horseman, and skilled with weapons. But he was also, evidently bisexual, and had been having what appeared to be sexual relations with Rizzio even before his marriage to Mary. Commentators of the day reported often seeing the two lying in the same bed. Same sex relationships were not as sharply observed and it was not even considered that unusual in the 16th century for basically heterosexual men to also engage in same-sex activities. But Darnely’s friendship with Rizzio was noted by court observers and even passed on as information to Queen Elizabeth.

    Despite the censorship restrictions of presenting no homosexuality on the screen, Ford’s film makes it quite apparent that their Darnely is a fop and even an outright queer. Dressed in a hanging glass earring and behaving quite effeminately, Walton’s performance makes it clear, particularly compared with the macho performance of March, the Darnely is what will be later in history labeled as homosexual or queer. Several commentaries have suggested the work is highly “coded,” but if this represents “code” then the actual coded films that followed have to be described as purposely obfuscatory. I think even my parents, who like so many heterosexuals of their generation, could not even imagine homosexual characters when they witnessed them would have recognized Walton’s performance as being queer.


     When Darnley first encounters Mary’s ladies-in-waiting, the four Marys, he comments: “Ah, the four pretty wenches,” their response makes it quite apparent what their attitude is: “Five, my lord, now that you’re here.”

      Obviously, given the restrictions of the code, Ford dared not attempt to portray the relationship between Darnely and Rizzio, although it is certainly intimated by his strong argument that Mary agree to make Darnely her King consort. And later productions of the story do strongly engage with the full story.

      By this time, moreover, Darnely has fallen by this time out of favor, and along with his often drunken bouts, had lost any credibility with the queen and court. Enemies of the queen where able to convince him that her child may have been the offspring of Rizzio. Whether or not he believed them he was convinced that his own lover had betrayed him, and in frustration for his loss of court power as the King consort he permitted others entry to stab Rizzio 57 times, one of the knives used being his own.

      If he had thoughts that this might mend his relationship with Mary, he was highly mistaken, Mary cutting him entirely out of her daily life..

    Once again, Wakefield summarizes the shifts:

 

“It is Bothwell who is the hero. It is he who saves Mary, and it is he who keeps Mary’s reign afloat during times of hardship—not Mary. Not only did the film give Bothwell all the credit and undermine Mary’s abilities; it also ignored the real Mary’s claims that Bothwell assaulted her, and forced her to marry him against her will. Audiences are encouraged to champion Bothwell and adore him as much as Mary does, rather than see him as the horrific brute he truly was. Thus, Mary of Scotland is a Disneyfied celebration of traditional gender roles, such as dominating males and submissive females, rather than the hard-hitting reality of a toxic relationship. By falsifying (or at best, ignoring) a woman’s traumatic experience in favour of entertainment, in my eyes Mary of Scotland did the real Queen’s memory a huge disservice. The love scenes between the two of them were so gooey, that even Ford asked Hepburn, who whom he was having affair, to self-direct them. She did herself no justice, becoming just a now normative heterosexual female instead of an imperious queen.”


    A year after Mary gives birth to a boy, James, a still discontented Darnley threatens to disown his son as his legitimate heir. Before he is able to carry out his plan, however, Darnley is burned alive in his private refuge, which is destroyed by planted explosives. As Knox damns Bothwell as Darnley's murderer, the earl "kidnaps" Mary and, in defiance of the council, secretly marries her. Twenty days later, Moray abducts baby James, and the rebel lords attack Holyrod Castle. Outnumbered by Moray's troops, Bothwell finally agrees to leave Scotland if Mary is allowed to remain queen. In spite of his promises, Moray forces Mary to abdicate and, after imprisoning her, makes himself regent.


    Bothwell is forced to escape to Denmark for his life, while attempting to assure that Mary will remain queen. He himself, in this now condensed version of events, jailed where, promising to still save Mary, dies.

     She now forced to escape Scotland, is assured safe passage to England by Elizabeth, only to be locked away upon her arrival. In reality she was imprisoned for more than 18 years, but permitted her own staff of more 16 individuals and her full wardrobe. Eventually accused for treason, she was called in for a full inquisition and found guilty, a decision even she recognized had been decided beforehand.


     She never did meet with Elizabeth, although almost every drama and opera concerning their history cannot resist their imaginary meeting. In this case, it is Elizabeth who is strong and quite forthright, while Mary still sounds like woman smitten with traditional heterosexual love, which the movie prioritizes as if she, being more a true woman than Elizabeth, she has actually aced her rival. She argues, accurately, that no matter what happens, she has won; she has loved and fulfilled her woman desires, and James I will eventually become King. Elizabeth attempts yet again to find a compromise, to discover some way out of having to kill her rival, but Mary will not renounce her position and gives no way but for Elizabeth to move ahead with the execution.

    In the final frames of what has now become a truly disappointing movie, Mary climbs the seemingly endless stairs to her execution as lighting crackles through the sky, a truly hokey and un-Ford-like ending to a rather otherwise complex movie.

     James I reigned in Scotland, Ireland, and England, after Elizabeth’s death, the last Tudor Queen, for 22 years, also becoming the strongest of the Scottish Kings. Although he married Anne of Denmark, and with her fathered three children, James tended to prefer the company of men and some of his biographers suggest that he had love affairs with Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox; Robert Carr, 1st Earl of Somerset; and George Villiers, 1st Duke of Buckingham. In most cases they were seen sharing beds and others claimed knowledge of their illegal acts of sodomy.

 

Los Angeles, September 24, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (September 2026).

Wednesday, September 23, 2026

Harold Young | The Scarlet Pimpernel / 1934

exquisite corpse

by Douglas Messerli

 

Lajos Bíró, S. N. Behrman, Robert E. Sherwood, Arthur Wimperis, Baroness Emmuska Orczy, and Alexander Korda (screenplay, based on the play and fiction by Baroness Orczy), Harold Young (director) The Scarlet Pimpernel / 1934

 

The major conceit of the 1934 British historical fiction, The Scarlet Pimpernel, is that the notorious hero of the British underground who helps to save the French aristocracy from the guillotine of Maximilein Fran Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre’s Reign of Terror, is none other than Sir Percy  Blakeney (Leslie Howard), hiding under the guise of a British fop so extreme in his effeminate mannerisms and role as clothes advisor to the Prince of Wales (Nigel Bruce) that no one, not even his wife, the beautiful Lady Marguerite Blakeney (Merle Oberon), might possibly suspect him as being the man who endangers his life time and again by returning to France and leading those about to be beheaded to safety. No queer, this fiction and film posit, could be so virile as to achieve those heroic deeds.


     It’s even hard for the audience of this film to comprehend that possibility since we are shown very few pieces of evidence of Percy’s actual heroic exploits. For most of the movie Sir Percy spends his time at his large estate rhyming couplets to create the popular poetic ditty that expresses the question on everyone’s mind:

 

                               They seek him here.

                               They seek him there.

                               Those Frenchies seek him everywhere.

                               Is he in heaven?

                               Is he in hell?

                               That damn elusive Pimpernel.

 

     Not only is this “poem” quoted three times in the film, but is actually subject to literary analysis, perhaps giving it the honor of the most talked about piece of poetic drivel ever put to screen.


     When he isn’t quoting his poetry or advising the Prince of Wales of the necessary flare of his sleeves (“Open up your sleeves, man. Let your ruffles take the air. Let them flow! Let them ripple!”), he spends most of his time whispering into his cohort’s ears or covertly passing on small slips of paper containing messages like schoolboys announcing, “I’ll meet you in the library at midnight.”

     That event turns out to be one of the major comic moments in the movie, in which both the Pimpernel and Chauvelin snooze through the purported meeting.

     The only “action” we actually witness him participating in is while dressed up in drag as an old gypsy hag, as he ferries out several former French aristocrats while driving a covered cart inside of which, she declares, is her son suffering from the plague. Obviously, the soldiers determine not to search the cart.

     The last time he poses in harm’s way, he is dressed as a French soldier. Only in the last scene is his life truly endangered, and even then, he knows that the soldiers outside that the villain Chauvelin (Raymond Massey) has ordered to shoot him, are his own men.

      His heroic adventures, accordingly, are mostly a bore, while his absurd encounters with other males outside of his own secret society, cause them to flee and the film’s audience to chuckle in delight. Women, of course, love him just as many females continue to adore gay men who will share the latest fashion gossip and appreciate their attire.


      How Marguerite could possibly have fallen in love with this queer, even before his transformation into a fop, remains unexplained throughout the work, although it is clear that she is now most unhappy in the marriage.

      But she has her own problems given the fact that she has unintentionally betrayed some of the very members of former French royalty who her husband is attempting to save, sending them to the guillotine by sharing their whereabouts and status with Chauvelin, partly in response to the fact that the male head of that particular family had interned her in a brothel in response to his son’s attempt to marry her, presenting us with the shades of a story similar to Sweeney Todd. Chauvelin continues to haunt her throughout this tale, moreover, by capturing her beloved brother Armand St. Just (Walter Rilla) and threatening her with his death if she does find out who the real Pimpernel is at the movie’s requisite grand ball.


      Her discovery that the Pimpernel and her husband are one in the same through a large family portrait portraying the Pimpernel insignia on a finger ring, only complicates events, instead of resolving them. But if nothing else, it certainly restores her love of her husband and explains the enormous transformation of his personality since their marriage.

      She and Sir Percy escape the net Chauvelin has put around their French hideaway, Le Leon d’or tavern, but it means the end of any further attempt to save the French mean and women from the guillotine, proving what Percy has himself explained would happen if their group were to be unmasked. Sir Percy, presumably, will now go back to his more masculine heterosexual self, quoting Shakespeare instead of his silly ditties, but I can assure he will not be half as much fun.

    Why it took six significant writers to cook up this barebones plot and dialogue is beyond explanation. Perhaps each of them contributed, like a cadavre exquis, one line of the poem.

 

Los Angeles, April 3, 2023

Reprinted from World Cinema Review (April 2023).

Siar Sedig | Last Exit Home / 2012

imagining himself as a woman to attract his man

by Douglas Messerli

 

Siar Sedig (screenwriter and director) Last Exit Home / 2012 [11 minutes]

 

This short film by Dutch director Siar Sedig truly irritated me.


    The central character, Leonard (Roy de Vries) is a man of habit, everyday taking the same subway route home, so often in fact, that he recognizes almost all of his fellow passengers.

    There is always a quite beautiful woman, Lisa (Caroline Bech) flirting with him or whoever else might catch her eye. Leonard, although almost psychotically shy, is actually a good-looking young man.

    But this day, for the first time, another rider, a quite handsome young man, Lucas (Raynor Arkenbout) enters the subway and sits alone. Almost immediately both the flirtatious woman and the passive Leonard recognize his beauty. Yet Leonard, in the 21st century, can seemingly not imagine that a handsome, slightly unshaved hirsute male might not be attracted to the woman attempting to lure men to her side, and needs to imagine himself as the woman, despite he being sis-gender, clearly attracted to the man himself.


     When it notices the man gets up to leave the subway that he has left his scarf behind, Leonard takes the brave action of finally retrieving the scarf, exciting when the man does, and finally calling out to him, after a great many pauses. But again, in his imagination, in order to be loved he turns into the woman, a trope I finally perceives as utterly obnoxious. One can be shy, doubt whether he can attract such a handsome stud, surely without imagining a gender change. This seems like material from the turn of the century when gay behavior was considered, even sympathetically, as being female related. Shyness and uncertainty does surely not require an imaginary shift into womanhood to explain.

     In fact, finally seeing our mess of confusions with his scarf, the stranger smiles, even seems somewhat attracted. Of course, Leonard is too tongue-tied to say anything, and simply hands the scarf over, returning to his endless routine.

     In terms of Vito Russo’s vision of gay figures in film history, he might as well have been shot in the head. His dream vanishes as he returns to a reality of his own making.

     Frankly, there is no excuse for this kind of film in 2012. Dutch filmmaking is so much richer and complex. I find this film frankly embarrassing.

 

Los Angeles, September 23, 20026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema (September 2026).

 

George Velez, Jr | The Goodbye / 2018

the happiest moment of his life

by Douglas Messerli

 

George Velez, Jr. (screenwriter and director) The Goodbye / 2018 [12 minutes]

 

How do you forgive when you’ve just suddenly discovered that as a young gay man you are about to die in six months. How do you forgive your former lover Shane (Mark Teale) who returns repentant but who treated you badly, hurting you terribly? Or a father (Mike Kelson) who walked out on you and your mother (Lisa Leilani) 3 days after you told him you were gay, even if the father explains that the problems between him and your mother had long been an issue before that day? The father now has a new family and a new son, who Joe (Shaun Mendum) suggests will probably grow up straight and play football, everything his father desires from a son.

     How do you deal with a meaningless job as a coffee counter clerk where everyone demands their precise combination of “a skinny” at just at just the right temperature with no chocolate on top or scream at you when the coffee, fresh from spigot, is declared ice cold? In that case, like Joe, you simply walk off the job.

     But everything else facing him appears to involve people trying to reenter his life to be able to grant themselves solace after adding pain to his own now short life. His father’s request to be allowed back into his life is countered by Joe’s comment: “Well, there’s not much of a life left.” He is already coughing up blood, the fact of which he hides from his mother and even from his best friend Kelly (Emi Maj), the only one who doesn’t seem to be asking for forgiveness, instead giving of her love as a friend.


      Joe is not very good at forgiving, particularly given his death sentence by the doctor. But in his hatred he also left terribly alone. His mother, however, keeps attempting to move him back into life and possible reconciliation, planning a day at the beach—strange since he lives and grew up near the beach—with herself, his estranged father, and his friend Kelly, which in a narrational aside Joe describes as the moment of his greatest happiness.

      This unsentimental short film by British director George Velez, Jr. does not have anything terribly profound to offer, but serves rather as a simple testament to the hundreds of lives of young men and women who have not yet had the opportunity to make all their mistakes or find their loves, or discover new worlds, and yet experience intense moments of joy in their short lives. Defying the challenge of Dylan Thomas, this film attempts to go gentle into the dark night.

 

Los Angeles, September 14, 2022 | Reprinted from World Cinema Review (September 2022).


Jirka Černý | Kdo jsi? (Who Are You?) 2021

who am i?

by Douglas Messerli

 

Jirka Černý (director) Kdo jsi? (Who Are You?) 2021 [14 minutes]


Alex/David and a man with many another name (Tomás Bares) is a thief, stealing everything from a bottle of liquor to the billfold out of a man’s pocket as he sucks him off.

   He doesn’t even have time to check out the billfolds he’s already filched before it’s time to keep his appointment with an internet meet up (Jirka Černý).

   His host insists they first share a light meal, and when he goes off to the bathroom returns to find his guest already in the kitchen looking through the drawers. He queries his host if he has just moved in, but the host argues no, that he simply likes to live a minimalist life, offering to show him the rest of the flat.

    As they join one another in the bed, the thief takes the role as the top, but the host soon flips the situation, and suggests that he might like the experience of handcuffs; but when he puts them on, addressing his guest not as Peter which is the name he has taken for the evening, but the string of other names he has used in his many robberies, the thief recognizes that his bedmate is a policeman.

     Asked outright why he is a thief, the man replies that he has been kicked out of the orphanage, and no choice in order to survive.

     The inquisitor finds that he wears a small necklace with a fish, and recognizes it immediately as being a symbol of the same orphanage from which he was released. Obviously, he has found another route into society, but recognizes how difficult it was.

     He releases his prisoner and demands that he leave immediately. Peter/Alex/David does so, but first places the recently stolen billfolds and his necklace by the door, indicating perhaps his intentions of attempting to change his life or, at least, his desire for reform.


  I’m not at all fond of the standard self-descriptions of this film, touting itself as a work about the dangers of meeting up on the internet. This could have been so much more profound without that claptrap:

 

“Nowadays, many people use dating apps just for hook-ups. If you want to have sex, you can have it almost instantly. However, the price for this is our lost identity. This has many advantages but also many disadvantages, which some people may misuse. What happens if a thief and a policeman decide to use such a dating app?”

 

     The fact is, that this is a tale of desperation and sympathy the likes of which is seldom shown by police officials.

     Surely our underground cop will have to pay in some manner for releasing his prisoner back into society without due justice. That such empathy can still be represented even by officials should remind us that they too are human beings. It is hard to perceive that with the daily reports in the US of ICE round-ups and murders of normal migrants and citizens. In the Czech Republic, apparently, there are still empathetic officials, no longer from the world of Kafka.

 

Los Angeles, September 23, 2026

Reprinted from My Queer Cinema blog (September 2026).

 

Titles Index A-N

https://myqueercinema.blogspot.com/2023/12/former-index-to-world-cinema-review.html Films discussed (listed alphabetically by director) [F...